Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Methods and Integrated Web-Based Decision Support SystemsIbrahim OzerUniversity of Ottawa

Presentation OutlineIntroductionProblemMethods for Multicriteria Group Decision MakingDecision-Making Process DiagramIllustrative ProblemBest Site SelectionDetailed MethodsWeb-based Tool for GDMMulticriteria Group Decision Making

Introduction: KeywordsGroups make better judgments than average individual members in analysis and evaluation tasks. (McGrath, 1984; Nah & Benbasat, 1999).Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. (As read on T-Shirts).

Multicriteria Group Decision Making

Introduction: Advantages/DisadvantagesUseful in judgmental tasksProduce better decisions than individualReducing effects of individual biasSolutions more likely to be accepted

Takes more timeOne capable person can decide as well as a groupSatisfactionNegative effects of bias decisionsNot necessarily a consensusAdvantagesDisadvantages

ProblemEnvironmental and natural resource problems affecting coastal regions.

Aspects involve marine use and ecosystem multicriteria description: Resources, Habitat, Effluents, Activities

Decision Makers: Local Communities, Federal Scientists, Industrial Organizations, Non-Governmental Organizations, and Provincial GovernmentsMulticriteria Group Decision Making

Methods for Group Decision MakingAnalytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)Weighted Sum Method (WSM)Weighted Product Method (WPM)AHP Combined MethodGroup Evaluation MethodFuzzy AHPFuzzy AHP CombinedFuzzy AHP GroupMulticriteria Group Decision Making

The Decision-Making Process: Individual DMersDevelop DecisionCriteriaAllocate Weightsto CriteriaDevelopAlternativesAnalyzeAlternativesSelect AlternativeImplementAlternativeEvaluate ResultsMulticriteria Group Decision Making

Illustrative Problem: Best Site Selection The ABC Restaurant Corporation is offering franchise opportunities. After completing all the requirements from the applicants, the company seeks the best site location from a set of alternative locations. There are three DMs to make the judgments: CEO, CFO, and CIO.Multicriteria Group Decision Making

NameTitle

NameTitle

NameTitle

NameTitle

NameTitle

NameTitle

Team Title

NameTitle

Company Name

Company NameDepartment Name

Best SiteSelection

Convenience

Traffic

Location1

Location2

Location3

Visibility

Location1

Location2

Location2

Location1

Location2

Accessibility

Location3

Location1

Location3

Location3

Level 0: Goal

Level 1: Criteria

Level 2: Alternatives

Methods: 1. AHPThe analytic hierarchy process (AHP), which provides a proven, effective means to deal with complex decision making, was first introduced by Thomas Saaty in 1970sEvaluation phase is divided into four steps given below;1. Generate pairwise matrices2. Generate the weights of the measures3. Normalize weights to get the consistency among measures4. Calculate the overall ratings Multicriteria Group Decision Making

Objective

Criteria 1

Criteria 2

Criteria N

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Level 0: Goal

Level 1: Criteria

Level 2: Alternatives

Methods: 1. AHPPairwise Comparison Matrix Interactive Feedback from CEOMulticriteria Group Decision Making

Criteria VisibilityAccessibility TrafficConvenience PriorityVisibility13220.398Accessibility-1 1/4 1/40.085Traffic--11/20.218Convenience---10.299

Methods: 1. AHPMulticriteria Group Decision MakingOverall Location Priorities for DMs

Methods: 2. WSMEvaluation of DMs by each DM.Multicriteria Group Decision MakingOverall priority of selecting a best location.

Methods: 3. WPMEach alternative is compared with the others by multiplying a number of ratios, one for each criterion. Multicriteria Group Decision MakingAlternatives pairwise comparison matrix and priority for CEO Since the CEO has the highest value (0.724) among the other DMs, his option -Loc.2- will be chosen to select the best location.

Methods: 4. AHP CombinedGeometric mean approach is used to combine the inputs of all DMs. After pairwise comparison matrix is conducted, AHP is used to get overall ranking.Multicriteria Group Decision MakingCriteria pairwise comparison matrix and priority for combined.

Methods: 5. Group EvaluationIn Group Evaluation, each DM evaluates the other DMs instead of alternatives. Each DM ranked the other two DMs with respect to criterion. Pairwise comparison matrices are created as follow Multicriteria Group Decision MakingDMs pairwise comparison matrix and priority with respect to Visibility

Methods: 5. Group EvaluationEach weight of DMs is multiplied by relevant criterion to get the following pairwise comparison.Multicriteria Group Decision MakingWe then weighted each alternative by multiplying their ranks by corresponding weight.

Methods: 6. Fuzzy AHPAlthough the AHP is to capture the experts knowledge, the traditionaly AHP still can not really reflect the human thinking style.Triangular fuzzy numbers are used based on arithmetic operations to express the decision makers evaluate on alternatives with respect to each criterion Triangular Fuzzy Number and Crisp Number Multicriteria Group Decision Making

Methods: 7. Fuzzy AHP CombinedEach decision maker (DM) individually assesses alternatives and criteria following to the normal Fuzzy AHP procedures and from their assessments, the geometric mean is calculated to obtain the final decision Multicriteria Group Decision MakingNormalized value of each criterion is multiplied by corresponding normalized alternative value and them sum them up. P2 (Loc.2) dominates the other locations.

Methods: 8. Fuzzy AHP GroupWeights for the DMs were empricially defined according to the AHP whereby each DM responded to the overall importance of all other DMs for this decision. Multiplying DMs judgment of criteria in fuzzy AHP by weight of each DM is called Fuzzy AHP Group.Multicriteria Group Decision MakingP2 (Loc.2) dominates the other locations.

Methods Strengths and WeaknessesMulticriteria Group Decision Making

Methods Strengths and Weaknesses contdMulticriteria Group Decision Making

Web-based Tool for Group Decision MakingJava, object-oriented programming is used.Multicriteria Group Decision Making

Database

User

Web-based Tool:Architecture of the ApplicationMulticriteria Group Decision MakingRun Time Environment, are run to evaluate the clients pairwise comparisons and then those weights are delivered to the Web browser on the client side. The weights delivered to the server and stored in the database. Java Application is used in the run-time environment to do the required calculations and results based on the appropriate methodology.

Web Browser/User Interface

Database

Client Machine

Windows

Run Time Environment

Java Application

Server

Results provided using AHP Modeling

Results/Reports

Web-based Tool: AquawebsiteMulticriteria Group Decision Making

Web-based Tool: AquawebsiteMulticriteria Group Decision Making

Web-based Tool: AquawebsiteMulticriteria Group Decision Making

Thank you